Ol' son, that is called reading into something that which you want it to say, not what it actually says. The original was written in the past tense and was not a prophecy, but rather a report of something that had happened in the past. No where does it mention the son of god nor doe it even imply a messiah or an anointed one. You also realize that you are basing this whole ridiculous claim on Christian propaganda that attempted to use Jewish scriptures to justify their beliefs. Sorry, no seegar, try again.

You make me laugh, you are so either foolish or pig headed!!
Have you read the rabbinical quotes on Isaiah53 above i suggest you do so, you obviously havent! Have you even read isaiah 52-53?
This is getting beyond a joke, i dont think i should carry on whipping you like this................................but im gonna!!! No one said the text mentioned the 'son of god' etc only that it was refferring to messiah. You are the one 'reading things into' posts here "ol son". By the way messiah is the annionted one why did you differentiate above??

Your Quote
"The original was written in the past tense and was not a prophecy, but rather a report of something that had happened in the past"
Now you are an expert on jewish/christian prophesy? You seem to know more than rabbis, jewish scholars, christian scholars, even Jesus Christ himself who are all in agreement that this is a messianic prohesy, and Jesus was God so you cant be any brainier than him,- its like one of the rules!!

Go rest your weary mind Mako, maybe if you take a break you might say things that are not so rediculous, or at least less willfully ignorant of the facts.

And it boils down to this nonsense...from what I can see Mako has made more sense and is far from foolish...you only think that of those that disagree with you..funny I have seen others say this too..wonder why that is

am i not entitled to reply BM when people constantly disguise lies as truth? whats your problem with this?

My point is you love an argument and if people don't pick your apples you will fight the bit out....should you copy and paste all night long you wont give in....nearly every single thread I have been in and saw your posts..you have been arguing the toss with a lot of folks..I think you do it for the sheer hell of it...Mako he is a lot older and wiser and has been down more roads, turned more corners than most of us, including YOU...and yet you will try (and I mean try) and argue and make it out as though he is foolish and hasn't a clue as to what he is talking about....tags if you where in a formal debate you would loose hands down...why does every single little thing have to turn into this crap? Why cant you take some time to read what people like Mako has to say and disagree if you will but do it with style....but that's a challenge itself

Lighten up a lil

PS you are entitled to reply but gee it's not a war tags

Any thing i have posted i have either been asked to do so or else i have some how lost my point!
I will do my best to show that what i believe is credible, and logical. If others do not like the fact that i will always try to do this then quite simply tough. Yes many here would like it if the christians lay down like little whipped pups and accept the criticism and redicule that many here dish out. Well im sorry but i aint like that, im going to see how far these people can uphold their view before it becomes rather foolish looking, -whats wrong with that. As for the older Mako thing, i do not discuss with people based on their age, but based on what they are saying. Im sure Mako is old enough to fight his own corner without your help! He seems very intelligent , and capable, and as im sure he would admit, age does not equate to being right.

With age come experience thats a fact..so he has experienced more.

tags you aren't here all that long..and I know that has nothing to do with it..but what I am trying to say is Mako is a well respected poster here..always has been and hardly anyone would argue with me on that...

No he doesn't need me to back him up...but all I was trying to do after all you DID ask me what my point was!!!! is to try and maybe get you to slow down a lil..I have read all of these posts...I may not respond as much but I watch all that goes on...and you are the only one so far that sticks out like a sore thumb, that seems a lil too on edge...

Tags there is no one saying DON'T reply..goodness NO..but it doesn't have to be a war tags...showing ignorance and calling names like you have (foolish and pighead was what you called him) is not showing how intelligent you are not a mission...if you keep it up..you will wind up stressing over it a lot more than you are now.

Please note this -- I am not saying you are not intelligent tags...you are..but you used to make posts that got your point across without hassle...but now you have let everything slip..is it really worth it?? you even re-started up an old argument that PA and I had dropped on another board, about born again christians...I just laughed at it all to be honest...but you now strike me as someone that would go to all lenghs to get a row going

If you are far bigger than that...prove it...you know you can

I'm one to talk though...I was forever jumping on someones hide arguing over this and that and at times I only made myself look bad...I learnt from that

Dejavue on another thread we need a standard post letter head on this subject I'm saying just the same thing to adbox....

Great minds think a like eh Sheri?

yes they do G, berri, Well good to see you keeping order lol

And you too girly...the Berri's will rule...take note people

I really do not see your point here. There are people that converse with me here that are much more passionate in refuting the bible etc than i am in defending it! I do not need to be patronised, about being bigger etc i have done little wrong.

If i have offended anyone in any way i am sorry. But i will say this, if you start to discuss something with me, i will certainly discuss it with you, i thought that is what a discussion forum is all about.

"you now strike me as someone that would go to all lenghs to get a row going"
BM I will go to all lengths to get a discussion going that actually interests me, again sorry if this is not to your pleasing.

Mako sorry for any offense.
BM sorry for disagreeing with you once more.

I have stayed out of this, but I must put my 2 cents in. If you are speaking of something that will occur 600 years in the future, you don't say, "there was a man born in Arkansas and he was the greatest man that ever lived." Instead you say, "there will be a man born in Arkansas and he will be the greatest man ever to live." You do not make prophesy in the past tense, only in the future tense. Mako is right, what is so hard to understand, your refusal to understand begs askance of of your logic. - the Wolf

Pulls up chair waits for BM

Id like to hear from mako he might have a better grasp of what is being said here.

This is a prophecy ok.
IMO it is partially fullfilled, ie the sufferings of Christ,
but it will not be fully realised untill the jewish nation see that Yeshua was messiah
then in the Future they will say (and obviously in the past tense) he Was wounded for our transgresions, he Was crushed for our iniquities etc etc,

Mako's history is some of the worst things to enter the board. His knowledge on European history is really rigged and is out right ridiculous. I could care less if he has been here 19 years and is 50 years old, throwing out false information in no way grants him privledge over anyone else's arguement. Any historian would debunk him in 5 seconds. And nice straw man by using age and term length to validate a point...You trying to defend him and attack another user for personl reasosn is childish.



Nope...keep trying...

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html


"I have to classify these two as "ringers" -- I see no references anywhere in the Mithraic studies literature to Mithra being buried, or even dying, for that matter [Gordon says directly, that there is "no death of Mithras" -- Gor.IV, 96] and so of course no rising again and no "resurrection" (in a Jewish sense?!) to celebrate. Freke and Gandy [Frek.JM, 56] claim that the Mithraic initiates "enacted a similar resurrection scene", but their only reference is to a comment by Tertullian, significantly after New Testament times! Tekton Research Assistant Punkish adds: The footnote is for Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 40 which says, "if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan, ) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown" ...so their argument relies on Tertullian's memory, and it isn't the initiates but Mithra who does the celebrating and introduces an *image* of a resurrection?! How is that at all related to initiates acting out a scene? Wynne-Tyson [Wyn.MFC, 24; cf. Ver.MSG, 38] also refers to a church writer of the fourth century, Firmicus, who says that the Mithraists mourn the image of a dead Mithras -- still way too late, guys! -- but after reading the work of Firmicus, I find no such reference at all!) Acharya adds the assertion of Dupuis that Mithras was killed by crucifixion, but from the description, either Dupuis or Acharya are mixing up Mithra with Attis!"
---------------------
"This claim, which I have seen repeated in part by the Secular Web's James Still, is a mix of truth and obfuscations. Let's begin with the December 25th part by noting Glenn Miller's reply, which is more than sufficient: "...the Dec 25 issue is of no relevance to us--nowhere does the NT associate this date with Jesus' birth at all." This is something the later church did, wherever they got the idea from -- not the apostolic church, and if there was any borrowing at all, everyone did it, for Dec. 25th was "universally distinguished by sacred festivities" [Cum.MM, 196] being that it was (at the time) the winter solstice.

Next, the cave part. First of all, Mithra was not born of a virgin in a cave; he was born out of solid rock, which presumably left a cave behind -- and I suppose technically the rock he was born out of could have been classified as a virgin! Here is how one Mithraic scholar describes the scene on Mithraic depictions: Mithra "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass. As yet only his bare torso is visible. In each hand he raises aloft a lighted torch and, as an unusual detail, red flames shoot out all around him from the petra genetrix." [MS.173] Mithra was born a grown-up, but you won't hear the copycatters mention this! (The rock-birth scene itself was a likely carryover from Perseus, who experienced a similar birth in an underground cavern; Ulan.OMM, 36.)

That leaves the shepherds, and this is one that is entirely true; although the shepherds did more than "attend" (unlike Luke's shepherds, they were witnesses to the birth; there was no angelic mediator), they also helped Mithra out of the rock, and offered him the first-fruits of their flock -- quite a feat for these guys in any event, considering that Mithra's birth took place at a time when (oops!) men had supposedly not been created on earth yet. [Cum.MM, 132] But the clincher here is that this scene, like nearly all Roman Mithraic evidence, dates at least a century after the time of the New Testament. It is too late to say that any "borrowing" was done by the Christian church -- if there was any, it was the other way around; but there probably was not. (It is fair to note also that the Iranian Mithra didn't have a "born out of rock" story...his conception was attributed, variously, to an incestuous relationship between Ahura-Mazda and his mother, or to the plain doings of an ordinary mortal woman...but there is no virgin conception/birth story to speak of. [Cum.MM, 16] Acharya says that the Indian Mitra, "was born of a female, Aditi, the 'mother of the gods,' the inviolable or virgin dawn; this is simply yet another case of her applying terminology [a "dawn" as "virgin" -- so when does the dawn start "having sex" and how?] illicitly. So likewise this word game: "It could be suggested that Mithra was born of 'Prima Materia,' or 'Primordial Matter,' which could also be considered 'First Mother,' 'Virgin Matter,' 'Virgin Mother,' etc..." -- it can be "considered" no such thing except by vivid imagination; merely playing on the psycho-linguistic similarity of sound in the English words "matter" and "mother" and trying to equare "first" with "virgin" isn't going to do the job. Research Assistant Punkish adds: ADITI (according to an astrological website) means Free unbound. Boundless heaven as compared with the finite earth. A Vedic goddess representing the primeval generator of all that emanated. The eternal space of boundless whole, the unfathomable depth signifying the veil over the unknown. (Note, not matter/mother but generator of matter!) The Rig Veda describes it as the father and mother of all gods; it is named Devamatri, mother of all gods, or Swabhavat, that which exists by itself. She is frequently implored for blessing children and cattle, for protection and forgiveness. In the Yajur Veda, Aditi is addressed as the support of the sky, the sustainer of the earth, the sovereign of this world, and the wife of Vishnu. The Vishnu Purana describes Aditi, the daughter of Daksha and the wife of Kashyapa, to be the mother of 8 Adityas (q.v.) (wife of Vishnu or Kashyapa? bit unlikely to be virginal then!!!) Then we have this website Dialogueonline.net - Magazine (comparative research on major religions) where we find: "According to the Rigveda (10/72/2) Brahmanaspati, like a craftsman, created the gods, and the gods in turn created 'Sat' from 'Asat'. The Rigveda (10/72/4-5) further says, "Daksha was born of Aditi and Aditi was born of Daksha, the gods were born of Aditi and Aditi gave birth to eight sons". This mantra suggests mainly two things - first, Aditi and Daksha took birth of each other, which proposition is never possible; second, the Creator of this universe was Aditi because she gave birth to the gods. But it ridicules more brazenly when refuting such points Rigveda (8/90/15) says: "Aditi was daughter of Adityas". In this connection, Rigveda produces more than one controversy as Rigveda tots up that Aditi was mother of Vishnu and so Rigveda (4/55/3 8/27/5) clarifies, "Aditi mothered Vishnu". But repudiating the same verse Vajasaney Samhita (20/60) and Taitirya Samhita (7/5/14) consolidates that Aditi was wife of Vishnu. The goddess, who herself is found in various controversies is considered creator of this universe. Thus, these mantras fail to shed any meaningful light on the basic issue of the birth, motherhood and even creation of the universe by Aditi.", Creator And Creation In Hindu Perspective)

Acharya now adds in her work iconographic evidence allegedly showing "the babe Mithra seated in the lap of his virgin mother, with the gift-bearing Magi genuflecting in front of them." One is constrained to ask how an icon reflects that Mithra's mother was a virgin, since it is obviously not stated. One also wants to know if any of this evidence is pre-Christian (it is not). Quoting others who merely say it is indicating a virgin birth, yet offer no more evidence, is not an argument. Finally, we are told of the "largest near-eastern Mithraeum [which] was built in western Persia at Kangavar, dedicated to 'Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras'." This is a very curious claim which is repeated around the Internet, but no source is given for it, and Acharya attributes it to a "writer" with no name or source. I believe, however, that I have found the terminal source, and it is a paper written in 1993 by a then-high school student, David Fingrut, who made this claim without any documentation whatsoever himself. His paper is now posted on the Net as a text file. That said, it is inaccurate to start with, since the building at Kanagvar is not a Mithraeum at all, but a temple to Anahita (dated 200 BC), and although I have found one source of untested value that affirms that Anahita was depicted as a virgin (in spite of being a fertility goddess!), she is regarded not at Mithra's mother, but as his consort (though it does offer other contradictory info) -- and it knows nothing of such an inscription as described; and the mere existence of the goddess Anahita before the Roman era proves nothing. Acharya appears to be throwing ringers again."

So, to conclude, Mithras was his own father like Osiris and Jesus.

What about prophecies being made in the future tense do you not understand? I am beginning to believe Mako was right, English is not your native tongue! - the Wolf

Wolf give it up, im tiered of explaining.
Can anyone else tell him what i am saying here?
(might be amunition for someone but whatever)

why should wolf give it up when you are the one who doesn't get it? It is not a prophecy to say "Yesterday it rained. I was late for work."

Jesus is not his own father.
Jesus is not God.

This thread is not about mithras etc, it is about your opinions isaiah 53.

The subject of any thread is what the responding members wish it to be. The original poster lost his control on the thread the moment he posted his first blurb. If they now wish to discuss Mithra, Osiris and Jesus or the trinity, then it is their right and previledge to discuss those subjects. As someone earlier said in another thread, no one died and made you queen.

I disagree, a new thread should probably be started if the whole point of the original post is lost. An individual starts a thread in order to hear others opinions on THAT topic. It is rediculous to accept complete tangents onto other ground, it is illogical and original posts feel like a waste of time.
What are your thoughts on Isaiah 53 Kit?

Disagree all you want, but the path of a thread is controlled by the responders, not the originator. Live with it or leave, your choice! My opinion is like everyone else except you, it is not a prophecy; prophecies are in future tense, Isaiah 53 is in past tense!

At least at the end of that post you conributed something worthwhile to the discussion now you are learning!
As for you issuing ultimatums to me,- to quote yourself "who died and made YOU queen"...the word hypocrite springs to mind.

BUT XIANS BELIEVE HE IS GOD, as in a part of the trinity with dad and spook. So he would be his own father if it were true.

I'm surprized that you recognize that in yourself, you seem to be so clueless otherwise

I was thinking the exact same about you Kit, and with each post you prove me more and more correct.

Don't normally butt in, but Kit Walker is not the one constantly showing his "donkey" and every post you make proves the point more!

What do you people want me to do,- take your insults and say nothing? i do not work that way, and by the looks of things no one here does, so why should i be any different tupac?

Tags profile says she's a he....I mean tags a he.

He never denied it!



Tupac Got to agree with you.

It is a desperate man that argues from authority.

Wanted to see how smart you guys really are, you do not even read the profiles of whom you are talking to!!! Yes you guys are really on the ball here, well done zandore, it only took a few weeks!

I have never refered to you as a he or a she!

Besides, the saying has always been, "Who died and made you Queen?", never anything else. I never even cared if you were male, female, neuter, black, white, green, polka dotted or what. You are too much entertainment, you make us all laugh!

Give your self a prat on the back mako, you make me laugh too.

Mako....did you see that Tags is only 16?

Tags: It is spelled PAT not prat.

The difference is, I make YOU laugh, but you make US ALL laugh!

Not but that would explain his total ignorance of history. What's the matter tags, is home schooling getting boring?

If that is so then I commend him for his moxie in taking on you two scallywags. He tends to get a little emotional but defends himself quite well and does his home work.
Keep it up Tags you are doing fine
Irish

Taking on I see the other way around, i think they are a great model of what one could be (mako and Zan-man ) Tags is very fortunate to have them be so gracious to do all his leg work ...namaste sheri

Yeah , but they already know what I think of them and I don't want to inflate their egos anymore my computer screen is not that wide

And we haven't?

Get a bigger screen.

Hey mate, inflate away....you know that I return your respect and that if me liver would stand up too it, I would be quaffing a pint along wi' ye.

If I called you a prat Zandore its a kind of insult...I think tags meant to type the word prat instead of pat....prat = idiot/jerk in the uk and Ireland


But I wouldn't call ya that

Can no one see what I am getting at here? Is no one going to agree that this is a possibility at least? The theology affects the grammatical element.

Quite true..it is controlled by responders Kit...without the responces his thread would go titanic lol but shoot BM here if you want when I add .... the idea is to respond to the actual thread itself...share views on the topic...which in this case is Isaiah 53....

Before continuing the ignorance of your sig, the Trinity pre-dates 325 A.D....

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/trinity.html
http://www.letusreason.org/Trin13.htm
http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/historic...th-centuary.htm
http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm
Time for a little updating on your false sig.

Ohh I can just see Kit changing his sig